Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sounds like the House Republicans had a 2 hour meeting with the main house leaders.

The leaders listened to each members ideas/thoughts and the main leaders are meeting right now to decide what to do next.

The thought is they are going to come up with an amendment and pass the bill in a partisan level and send it back to the Senate. The spending cuts are going to come from things that the President and Senate has supported in the past according to the house republican they interviewed on CNN.

What do the Republicans really get dbroncos? They wanted spending cuts, but it adds 3.7T to the deficit.

They compromised and agreed to raise taxes on the wealthy, and they don't even get the spending cuts that they wanted.

This was an awesome deal for liberals but Republicans really don't get a lot.

They get to not have to have messed up what they helped create with the Budget Control Act.

They will get to take their chances for cuts to spending when we aren't up against the wall and they can spell out what cuts they want to make. Because they really haven't spelled anything out and let us know what they want to cut. Do they want to cut Social Security (which doesn't contribute a penny to the debt)? Do they cut Medicare (which is mostly self funded except for some general revenue funding and premiums for Parts B & D)?

The American people don't want those programs taken away or drastically changed. This is why they don't get changed.

LOL kick the can down the road. Typical liberal logic. This is a rushed deal that could have been solved months and months ago.

We all know what's going to happen in March. Gonna be another big fight, bickering and they'll find a deal for 3-4 months and will be another fight then.

This isn't a compromise, this is a kick the can down the road deal because it was rushed through. Spending Cuts NEED to happen in this deal, not add to the deficit.

Come on now..."typical liberal logic". Is this the best that you can do? Tell me what cuts that you would put out there. Because I haven't seen anyone in the GOP put out real cuts that they want. All I hear is Social Security and Medicare changes which the American people resoundingly deny that. Probably because of the fact that Social Security doesn't need cuts but continues to come up. Probably because of the fact that Medicare needs tweaking but not drastic cuts.

We need to use Medicare to reduce the costs of medication and pills by modifying Part D, we need to reform the SSDI as well, and we need to cut our overseas contingencies drastically and make the hundreds of military bases in countries that we just don't need them in. Outside of that we need to enact a certain percentage of cuts across the board in all departments.

But if this is just going to be the "...liberal..." BS, then there is no need for me to respond. I don't do it to other people and I'm just going to ignore it.

Boehner and McConnell have consistently out-maneuvered Obama for the last 5 years. They know if they push him hard enough, Obama will do anything to avoid confrontation and give into their demands. Democrats crack when the pressure is on. William Clinton and Obama are prime examples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinnum1
Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

Boehner and McConnell have consistently out-maneuvered Obama for the last 5 years. They know if they push him hard enough, Obama will do anything to avoid confrontation and give into their demands. Democrats crack when the pressure is on. William Clinton and Obama are prime examples.

You mean they were out maneuvering him the year before he was elected? He is finishing is 4th year.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

This isn't a compromise, this is a kick the can down the road deal because it was rushed through. Spending Cuts NEED to happen in this deal, not add to the deficit.

There is absolutely no need for cuts to social programs at all. If the U.S. ever needed to make cuts (which they don't) they should do away with the over bloated military. Besides, I already mentioned why we don't need cuts, so I'll requote my self:

"The deficit isn't a problem because we hold most of our own debt, and the rate for 10 year bonds are at all time lows. Markets don't believe the deficit and debt are a problem, otherwise they wouldn't be pouring in large amounts of their own money into treasuries and bonds the way they are, while accepting small returns in exchange for safety.

If the deficit were an actual problem, markets would leave those long term bonds and treasuries, and the rate would jump much higher. Markets don't believe the debt and deficits are a problem.

And Social Security is a small part of the budget. There are no problems there. In fact, back in the 80's, Social Security had bigger problems, and they were fixed without any issues. Social Security is one of the most successful programs in the history of the United States.

Now Medicare is putting a ton of drag on the budget for the very long term (if trends continue), but that's not the fault of medicare (the concept of the government paying for a needy person's health), as it's the fact that we have a terrible privately-owned-publicly-subsidized healthcare system that allows private industry to exploit everything to overcharge for medicine. I'll take Pfizer for example. They are given government protected patents that allow them to overcharge for medicine. They make pills that they charge for hundreds, if not, thousands of dollars. Due to the government given patents, no one else is allowed to make and sell those pills. If generics were allowed, those pills would probably just cost a few bucks. But since Pfizer has government patents, generics are illegal, and they can overcharge for the pill since they know the government will pay the bill, and thanks to government protection, no one else is allowed to make such a pill.

It's really a system that allows private institutions to leech off of public tax dollars, and that is what could cause any long term problems. In fact, if the U.S. had a health system like any other industrialized country in the world, we wouldn't have a deficit, but we'd have a surplus. Here is an excellent calculator that can give you the exact numbers if you wanted to test with different countries systems:

So there exists no need to cut social programs (or "entitlements" as they're referred to). BUT there is a need to move away from the current health system of private industry leeching off of public tax money, and move into a health system that is like any other industrialized countries in the world.
Reply With Quote"

Now both parties want to make cuts. There is no need for cuts, PERIOD.

LOL kick the can down the road. Typical liberal logic. This is a rushed deal that could have been solved months and months ago.

Why are we even on this road in the first place?

Because the Tea baggers and other Rep extremists who have hijacked the GOP have been trying to push their own, reactionary agenda at all costs, to the detriment of any kind of traditional bi-partisan cooperation.

The extreme right's reactionary agenda was pretty clearly rejected at the last election. No reasonable or sane politician should ever even dream about something as batshit crazy as the Norquist "pledge". How many Reps in Congress signed up, how many are still pushing that line?

Taxes are a part of life. They're part of being an adult and taking part in society. 'Things' that people normally don't think about - like roads, or wars - cost money, lots of money. As everything becomes more expensive, governments may from time to time require increased revenues. Taxes might have to go up. That's how it works. You can't cover all new or needed expenses by simply reducing or 'saving' on existing expenditure. The extreme right needs to face this simple reality.

(Though a dramatic slashing of what we laughingly call 'defense' spending would make an immense difference!)

To build on what Amster said, when you have a large group of the GOP that doesn't want a deal unless there is just massive spending cuts you force yourself to work with the Democrats more and you need to mold policy that brings them on board. When you do this you will see taxes go up on the highest income earners, Medicare be spared from all but minor changes, and no change in Social Security. Don't elect fringe in your party and you won't have to depend on working so heavily with the Democrats. If you have the entire House GOP caucus as moderates, the deal would be much more to your liking. But you have states that have set up the districts so the GOP members don't fear being unseated by Democrats, they only fear primary challenges so they are responding to the incentives provided for them and those incentives lead to Democrats getting a larger seat at the bargaining table than you like. Don't get mad at the Democrats, get mad at your party for catering to fringe figures and making themselves less influential.

To build on what Amster said, when you have a large group of the GOP that doesn't want a deal unless there is just massive spending cuts you force yourself to work with the Democrats more and you need to mold policy that brings them on board. When you do this you will see taxes go up on the highest income earners, Medicare be spared from all but minor changes, and no change in Social Security. Don't elect fringe in your party and you won't have to depend on working so heavily with the Democrats. If you have the entire House GOP caucus as moderates, the deal would be much more to your liking. But you have states that have set up the districts so the GOP members don't fear being unseated by Democrats, they only fear primary challenges so they are responding to the incentives provided for them and those incentives lead to Democrats getting a larger seat at the bargaining table than you like. Don't get mad at the Democrats, get mad at your party for catering to fringe figures and making themselves less influential.

This is just a quick glance over the first couple pages of Google searches. But really this is downright pathetic. This is why we have such a hard time making these deals. You have representatives who only fear a primary from someone more extreme than themselves. They aren't going to get beat by someone of the other party unless something drastic happens.